By Dan Israeli
The hearing was originally scheduled for last December, but was pushed back after T-Mobile made a request for adjournment.
Including an 11-hour hearing in September of 2006, the case has now seen some 20 hours of testimony, making it one of the most lengthly debated cases in BZA history, according to Assemblyman Tom McKevitt, who represented the Franklin Square United Neighborhood Association at the hearing. The group, along with supporters in West Hempstead, is fighting an application by Omnipoint Communications, Inc./T-Mobile to erect a 65-foot-tall cell tower at the Franklin Bridge Center parking lot on Dogwood Avenue.
Residents have opposed the proposed tower because of its proximity to their homes and its potential to be an eyesore in their low-rise suburban community. McKevitt also challenged the necessity of the tower, which Omnipoint said was required to close an existing gap in coverage in the area. "What it all boils down to is, Omnipoint is only entitled to build the tower if they demonstrate need," McKevitt said. "We have proved that their phones work in the area, bases on practicality standards."
At the hearing, McKevitt relied on the testimony of Richard Comi, an expert hired by the neighbors association, who tested T-Mobile's coverage in the area by making 100 phone calls, 25 of them from inside a building, 18 month ago. Another 42 calls were made by resident Stuart Lipsky. McKevitt noted that none of the calls were dropped, and only one call failed due to a busy signal.
Alfred Amato, the attorney representing T-Mobile, challenged the validity of the tests, and also Comi's qualifications as an expert in radio frequency. Amato said that scan tests determined low signal strength in the area that would not allow "in-building penetration" of calls.
T-Mobile's own expert, Richard Conroy, a radio frequency engineer, defended the evidence. "We proved at the last meeting that there was a gap in coverage," said Amato. "The site is the only feasible commercial property in the area."
McKevitt argued that while there is an industry standard of necessary radio frequency, it is irrelevant if the phones are proven to work. "From my standpoint, reliability should be from a consumer's standpoint," he said.
As for the tower's visual impact, McKevitt enlisted the help of Charles May, a landscape architect, to illustrate why he thought the tower wouldn't be a good fit for the community. May used drawings to depict the contrast in size between the tower and buildings and trees in the area, which he said were no higher than 25 and 42 feet, respectively. "The [tower] is completely out of context with the community," May said. "If I was to design a cityscape, I would not want this included. My recommendation is that the pole should be removed to a different area."
T-Mobile's own expert on aesthetics, landscape architect Donna Marie Stippo, claimed that the Dogwood Avenue site was ideal for the tower. "Our testimony made clear that we have thoughtfully considered all potential locations throughout the area where residents would benefit from enhanced wireless coverage," said Steve Twardy, T-Mobile's Long Island manager for engineering and operations. "Our landscape architect underscored how this application truly represents the optimal balance between the needs of wireless users and the concerns of residents, many of whom are wireless customers today."
Both the Franklin Square Neighborhood Association and T-Mobile conducted visual tests to determine what a 65-foot-tall structure would look like at the proposed site. May tied a four-foot balloon with a 60-foot string to a car bumper, and association members took photos from several vantage points, from neighbors' backyards to their windows. T-Mobile performed a similar test with a crane, which they also photographed from nearby streets.
Amato said that the tower would blend in with the tall trees in the area, and could even be painted brown to camouflage it, or be disguised as a flag pole, the company's original idea. The equipment at the base of the tower would be surrounded by a brick wall and a gated entrance for maintenance work.
Ron Lipsky, president of the neighborhood association, said that T-Mobile's crane test only proved the group's point that the tower would be an obstruction. "One neighbor testified that the crane was visible from his son's bedroom," said Lipsky. "I think the major thing here is that the board has to make a decision on the evidence presented. I think there is enough before the board that if they so desire, they could rule in our favor."
Bruno Caracciolo, who lives on Ribbon street, a block from the proposed site, said he didn't see a need for the tower. "It changes the landscape of the community," he said. "I don't need a 65-foot flag pole with flashing, distracting lights. I also don't see the need. They say our proof wasn't scientific enough, but we didn't have any problems making calls."
Twardy said that the need for better coverage in the area was crucial. "T-Mobile believes that Franklin Square residents deserve the peace of mind that comes with expanded wireless coverage - the ease of staying connected to the important people in their lives, and to improved access to emergency services," he said. "We have a commitment to ensuring that all residents and families in Franklin Square have reliable coverage when they need it most."
Both sides now have 45 days to submit final legal briefs and findings of fact to the zoning board.
Comments about this story? DIsraeli@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 214.
